 | | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) I'm in the low end camp. For most things, a 640x480 image is plenty, especially if you crop it. I will go up to 800x600 or even 1024x768, but I much prefer to keep them small. Of course I'm still running a 33k modem so large images are a (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: train 3 pics uploaded on brickshelf
|
|
There should be a main picture page on Calum Tsang's Peachy Server (w/ RTL Events photos) regarding Train 3. (I don't think it is quite ready yet.) It will link all the photos that everybody took. I am quite sure that there were several with photos, (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | RE: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) My preference is at least 400 pixels wide and at most 1024 wide. This doesn't hold for wallpapers, of course. Perhaps there's a way that the HTML could be modified to resize the images to the browser width if the image is large? Of course this (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) I notice this in IE 6 on XP the other night. If you open only the picture in the browser, it automatically resizes the image to a smaller size. Even though the quality of the resize was fairly good, I wasn't a fan, and turned off this option (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) I usually go for the 'low end', and size my pictures to around 640x480. If someone asks for a more detailed image of something, I'll either go full-size, or try to crop down to just what they want to see. I've got a 3.3megapixel camera, so if (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
